The Sedevacantist Thesis

[GiftOfGod]

Personally, I'm offended by laypeople exceeding their authority and "declaring" a priest to be "invalid" because of a rite of ordination.

So you would like a rule that only clerical opinions can be cited? Fine by me as I have many writings from Fr. Cekada on the subject.

While I agree that non-traditional sacramental rites are inferior to traditional rites, I don't think anyone but God is in a position to know that a man is not authentically ordained.  For the time being, we must assume that a Catholic priest has been validly ordained, whatever the rite.  We needn't assume anything beyond that, such as proper theological formation, etc.

That contradicts the earlier sentence. Now "only God" can know? That flies in the face of what the Church teaches: You are not to approach a doubtfully-ordained priest for sacraments. In the pre-V@ days, the Church would investigate and inform us on doubful ordinations. Since the Conciliar Church worthless on this matter, by your logic, it's a free for all. I could ordain myself nd use your argument that "only God knows".

[TerrorDæmonum]

In the pre-V@ days, the Church would investigate and inform us on doubful ordinations. Since the Conciliar Church worthless on this matter, by your logic, it's a free for all. I could ordain myself nd use your argument that "only God knows".

Think about this. Sedevacantists are the ones who have no appeal.

Labeling those you think are wrong "the Conciliar Church" and dismissing them is making you a little blind to the fact that the Church you dismissed actually does investigate and inform on these matters. See that case of the Baptism issues.

Sedevacantists cannot do this. They are free to ordain anybody and in anyway (and, you can see in their lines that they do) and answer to no one but to "God". It is the attitude of Charles XII of Sweden.

Sedevacantists who don't realize this are probably in great danger. Their opinions aren't that certain, and neither are yours, for you cannot even declare a sacrament invalid or not with certainty and you err on the safe side. Your opinion is not that certain for the confidence in it. Care must be taken.

[Prayerful]

In the pre-V@ days, the Church would investigate and inform us on doubful ordinations. Since the Conciliar Church worthless on this matter, by your logic, it's a free for all. I could ordain myself nd use your argument that "only God knows".

Think about this. Sedevacantists are the ones who have no appeal.

Labeling those you think are wrong "the Conciliar Church" and dismissing them is making you a little blind to the fact that the Church you dismissed actually does investigate and inform on these matters. See that case of the Baptism issues.

Sedevacantists cannot do this. They are free to ordain anybody and in anyway (and, you can see in their lines that they do) and answer to no one but to "God". It is the attitude of Charles XII of Sweden.

Sedevacantists who don't realize this are probably in great danger. Their opinions aren't that certain, and neither are yours, for you cannot even declare a sacrament invalid or not with certainty and you err on the safe side. Your opinion is not that certain for the confidence in it. Care must be taken.

I think the 'Conciliar Church' was first used by some fathers of V2, and picked up by the SSPX, who used it with at least a different intent, albeit with perhaps a similar meaning, that the Conciliar and rest and the Church was of one Church, but either of those portions was lesser in some way, needing more V2 or less to none of it.

[Miriam_M]

Personally, I'm offended by laypeople exceeding their authority and "declaring" a priest to be "invalid" because of a rite of ordination.

So you would like a rule that only clerical opinions can be cited? Fine by me as I have many writings from Fr. Cekada on the subject.

While I agree that non-traditional sacramental rites are inferior to traditional rites, I don't think anyone but God is in a position to know that a man is not authentically ordained.  For the time being, we must assume that a Catholic priest has been validly ordained, whatever the rite.  We needn't assume anything beyond that, such as proper theological formation, etc.

That contradicts the earlier sentence. Now "only God" can know? That flies in the face of what the Church teaches: You are not to approach a doubtfully-ordained priest for sacraments. In the pre-V@ days, the Church would investigate and inform us on doubful ordinations. Since the Conciliar Church worthless on this matter, by your logic, it's a free for all. I could ordain myself nd use your argument that "only God knows".

No, I'm saying that, with respect to ordination, reserving judgment and offering the benefit of the doubt are the Catholic options.  For example, we've all been to "bad" confessors before among the N.O. variety, probably, especially in the modern age.  You and I should judge his advice to be bad, his training to be bad, etc., and would want to avoid him in the future, but that does not mean that he doesn't hold valid priestly credentials.  Move on, already.  We don't prove how Catholic we are by conducting verbal vendettas against priests who had the misfortune to be ordained in the new rite, or who made that deliberate choice, knowing the differences.  Being truly Catholic is not a head trip or an academic exercise.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I think the 'Conciliar Church' was first used by some fathers of V2, and picked up by the SSPX, who used it with at least a different intent, albeit with perhaps a similar meaning, that the Conciliar and rest and the Church was of one Church, but either of those portions was lesser in some way, needing more V2 or less to none of it.

Yes, its origins are interesting. It was one of the first things I asked on this forum in fact. One of my statements in that thread seems to be based on interactions off the forum but I don't remember the exact context.

But the "Conciliar Church" is like "Modernism" in how it is used around here: it is a thing that people just associate with whatever they want to condemn and is not a useful phrase otherwise unless there is a strictly defined understanding of exactly what they are.

Once people just starting labeling all the people, books, translations, etc, past a certain date the "Conciliar Church", it was clear that it is meaningless to use.

[GiftOfGod]

Accusing people who are not Sedevacantist of being "the enemy".

Again, that has little to do with sedevacantism and by your logic, the SSPX is sedevacantist. My statement of "The enemy is the Conciliar Church" is taken from the below statement made by the forum admin and quoted by a forum moderator. Bold and enlarged font is mine.

Preamble

Suscipe Domine is a traditional Catholic forum. The "party line," as it were, is that of the Society of St. Pius X.

The forum's policy towards sedevacantists is taken from Abp. Lefebvre, "I do not say that the pope is not the pope... But I do not say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope."

At the end of the day, we are united in our common belief, be we sedeplenist or sedevacantist, SSPX or FSSP. Keep this in mind while you post. Our enemies are NOT each other, but rather, the Conciliar Church.

Given that we founded this forum with the explicit unifier of sedes and non-sedes holding firm against a mutual enemy to all Catholics, the Conciliar Church, I don't foresee too many problems.

[TerrorDæmonum]

When you just lump the entire Church after a certain date into a mysterious "Conciliar Church", it is a meaningless phrase.

Where, then, is the Church? Where is the visible Head? Where is the Church which was described and defined by the Church?

Where is it?

If you dismiss everything to do with the Pope, bishops under him, and everything associated with them, what else is there?

The "Conciliar Church" was never defined. There are no borders to it. It is whatever people decide to call part of it.

Cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what to believe and don't hold themselves accountable to the full faith are the ones who were the problem and rampant. How are you different in what you profess so strongly?

[GiftOfGod]

When you just lump the entire Church after a certain date into a mysterious "Conciliar Church", it is a meaningless phrase.

Where, then, is the Church? Where is the visible Head? Where is the Church which was described and defined by the Church?

Where is it?

If you dismiss everything to do with the Pope, bishops under him, and everything associated with them, what else is there?

The "Conciliar Church" was never defined. There are no borders to it. It is whatever people decide to call part of it.

Cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what to believe and don't hold themselves accountable to the full faith are the ones who were the problem and rampant. How are you different in what you profess so strongly?

If attending Mass, the ordinary form as celebrated everyday around the world be sinful, then the Church no longer exists.

Period.

Rather, if the NOM were the lex credendi of the Church, then the Church would no longer exist. However, the true mass and the true sacraments still exist and will hold the candle of faith until Our Lord steps in to restore His Bride to her glory.

We could compare ourselves to the Catholics in England at the time of the Reformation. Was it sinful for them to attend Cranmer's service?

We have to remind ourselves that all the machinery of the "Church" continued in place. They had priests, bishops, churches, cathedrals. But all of them were using the new "Book of Common Prayer" instead of the Catholic Mass. Ordinary lay people could see with their own eyes an enormous entity that called itself the "Church," but did the true Church still exist in that situation?

Meanwhile, in small hiding places in certain homes were a handful of true priests offering the true Mass at the risk of imprisonment, torture and death.

[TerrorDæmonum]

For the sake of discussion, I am accepting all you claimed.

Now, Where is the Church?

I have heard a lot about where the Church isn't and who are heretics, but I have yet to see where the Church actually is, as the Church teaches.

So point me to it and it better resemble what is infallibly taught by the Church through the ages.

This is the Ninth Article of the Creed. If it is wrong, then everything is wrong.

I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.

If it is not where I think it is, then where is it?

No more arguing or debate: you win. Now show me the Church.

Then I will compare it to the teachings of the Church, and see if it is true or not. And remember, a violation of the Ninth Article of the Creed is a grave matter:

Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.

[Kaesekopf]

The idea of this Forum wasn't for sedes or sedeplenists to talk crap at each other, constantly reminding others that their own excrement doesn't stink.  Rather, it was for traditional Catholics to post together and find a common community. 

Maybe my persistent naivete was, as usual, wrong on that particular point.

[Miriam_M]

THIS.

The idea of this Forum wasn't for sedes or sedeplenists to talk crap at each other, constantly reminding others that their own excrement doesn't stink.  Rather, it was for traditional Catholics to post together and find a common community.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Maybe my persistent naivete was, as usual, wrong on that particular point.

You did not clean up the infractions and it encouraged it. This inactivity has resulted in people using it as justification.

Moderation is not censorship: it is quality control.

Sedevacantist perspectives being present without any restriction on every thread has made this forum very discouraging to those who want to discuss certain things. Even the most cordial members of this forum who hold this view can be discouraging if one doesn't want to defend a perspective that they don't share.

[TerrorDæmonum]

The most basic quality control measure is to keep topics where they belong.

Moral Theology discussions shouldn't be in History, and Sedevacantist positions shouldn't be advanced in Buy/Sell/Trade.

People who want to discuss a devotion not universally practiced should be able to do so in Traditional Catholic Discussion, while people who want to discuss any devotion or approved practice or private revelation should be able to do so in accordance with the rules, particularly this one.

People can and should have different perspectives and different opinions, but without the boundaries, there is no way to discuss it without making it a matter of absolutes on a single matter.

[Jayne]

The idea of this Forum wasn't for sedes or sedeplenists to talk crap at each other, constantly reminding others that their own excrement doesn't stink.  Rather, it was for traditional Catholics to post together and find a common community. 

It was a wonderful goal and this forum succeeded remarkably well for a long time.   

Unfortunately, it is yet another one of those things that will only happen if enforced by moderation.

[GiftOfGod]

Anti-sedevacantist perspectives being present without any restriction on every thread has made this forum very discouraging to those who want to discuss certain things.